Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

dhavleak writes "From Gizmodo: Earlier today, the Microsoft-built YouTube app for Windows Phone was unceremoniously disabled by Google. These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time, and usually resolve themselves without screwing too many users. But boy, Microsoft didn't take it quietly."

"There was one sticking point in the collaboration. Google asked us to transition our app to a new coding language – HTML5... At the end of the day, experts from both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming,"

So one of the largest software companies in the world can't code an app to display content from a web page in HTML5?

Maybe they should hire some people who've moved past VBA or consider getting out of the business?

The YouTube website will have to deal with multiple browsers with varying capabilities and it seems unlikely Google would invest much time optimizing for a browser that has such low market-share. If the shoe was on the other foot, it's not like MS would worry about anyone else. Indeed, they didn't in the past.

HTML5 is pretty rich now. If you're building an HTML5 for a single browser, it isn't hard to build something that's almost like a native app.

that's even funnier considering that MS says their browser for windows phone is desktop quality.

(it isn't, of course, at least if you think desktop quality as supporting stuff their desktop ie10 does and of course stuff that it doesn't support is the stuff that makes it easier to develop flexible screen size pages)

anyways.. try to make an unofficial hotmail client and good luck with that!

"At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.".."To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors."..."To understand our position in more detail, it helps to start with the assertion that open systems win. This is counter-intuitive to the traditionally trained MBA who is taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle. The conventional wisdom goes that companies should lock in customers to lock out competitors. There are different tactical approaches — razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software... expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run — the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples — but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't."..."In other words, Google's future depends on the Internet staying an open system, and our advocacy of open will grow the web for everyone - including Google."

Are you fucking kidding me, that's in a browser. Come back when you stop dribbling shit. Microsoft is more than willing to display whatever obnoxious and intrusive ads google wants, but google wont tell them. Microsoft may well need some supervision (even though they are hardly the unstoppable monopoly they once were, and if writing their own youtube app is a measure how evil they are.. well yeah) but Google is no way to enforce this, this kind of power its only going to (already has) created an even worse monster. A monster who knows you better than your own mother; at least with Microsoft we knew they were incompetent.

I think Google made the iphone youtube app themselves, which they wont do for Microsoft because they are too busy and there aren't enough users (which is in part due to lack of main stream apps). But the rest sounds plausible. Microsoft might deserve it, but it seems cruel to me for Google to punish those poor 11 windows phone users.

The reason Google won't do anything to help out Microsoft on this or any other issue is this:

Bing

Google's revenue comes from search, everything else they do is gravy. It may be a (greatly) inferior product, but Bing is a viable competitor to Google search. If there's one thing that would greatly increase Bing usage at the expense of Google it would be widespread adoption of Windows Phone. It's not doing so well in the US, but don't be fooled. It's catching on in Europe and Nokia's cheap models are really

Apple doesn't have a YouTube app. They stopped making one. The most popular youtube app for iOS is made by Google. Google is not a third party to Google and does not have to abide by third party conditions.

He told me that, in effect, to give third parties access to the same APIs that Google's YouTube apps use would be akin to disclosing how Google's servers are set up, deep details of how its ad infrastructure works, and this kind of thing. Google doesn't give out that information to anybody.

All third party YouTube apps use the HTML5 API -- all but Microsoft's, which is why Microsoft's was blocked. BlackBerry's YouTube app uses the HTML5 API. very smart TV and every Blu-Ray player that ships with a YouTube streaming feature uses the HTML5 API. PlayStation, you name it. It's not like you can't build a commercial quality YouTube app using the HTML5 API, because everybody else is doing it.

Also, consider that the first version of Microsoft's native YouTube app had a download button that allowed you to save any video to your device. Anybody who's ever used YouTube knows that's one of the biggest no-nos, and that YouTube is intended to be a streaming service ONLY. So why did Microsoft build that feature into its app if it was trying to play by the rules?

Probable answer: This whole thing has been Microsoft spoiling for attention and trying cast negative aspersions on Google, from the very beginning.

we would never let you be compatible for free; look at how we block free implementations of ActiveSync; however we demand that Google let us into their market so we can fuck them because they aren't nearly as nasty as we are

Microsoft are a bunch of hypocrites as ever. Google should not be opening up anything for them until Microsoft fully opens all of their server protocols; clearly shows remorse for the things they have done in the past (including clearly identifying who was responsible and ensuring that they are handed over to the justice system) and fully and clearly compensates all of the companies and people (Sendo; Netscape; Borland; Novell; IBM etc.) they have damaged in the past through abuse of their monopoly situation.

If some guy has come by and been caught robbing you several times, that does not make it discrimination if you don't invite him when you invite all your other neighbours over.

Google already made an HTML5 version of his youtube app... it's called the web version of youtube... With full Youtube experience...

Also, I understand that Google is picky about Ad in it's content... First, it's his (only ?) source of income and second, it's part of the restriction that content-owners putt with their app and if Google don't manage it reliably, the content owners will deny access to their content to whole Youtube community !

it's called the web version of youtube... With full Youtube experience

So you've never tried it then. The mobile version. If you had, you wouldn't say anything this retarded. BTW, the HTML5 version works perfectly fine on Windows Phone, but that is not what this is about. This is about the request from MS to have an equivalent experience for Windows Phone that you get on Android and iOS, and Google saying "no, you can't".

Google are being assholes, the only loser is the consumer, and supporting such behavior on part of any company just shows how utterly retarded religious nutca

Google are not being assholes, they are protecting their revenue from the ad's playing together with the videos..

They had 2 requirements that microsoft listed in the article.- Not an HTML5 app. (requirement from Google maybe?)- Google claims that the application does not show the AD's as it should in all instances.

Only time Microsoft can complain is if they fulfill all the listed requirements and Google still refuses them access.

Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators.

Why should Google allow any other company to develop their own application without following the requirements specified for the service?

If Google says "you gonna have to write it in Amiga E and then emulate a 68000 cpu on the phone to run it" that will be the terms of using the service... It's only google than can decide what the rules are and they are free to set them to any level they want and they can be as hard and as soft as they want towards anyone implementing it... Microsoft have a

The real question is whether Google is imposing conditions on MS that they are not on anyone else. The sticking point is that third party apps must use the HTML5 API according to both Google and MS. However MS is crying foul that Android and iOS apps use native APIs. Here's the thing that MS is missing: the Android and iOS apps are not third party. They were written by Google.

What Google is doing is saying: "No, since we don't like your company, you will never be allowed to write an app for YouTube. Ever. We are assholes, and we own YouTube, and we hate Microsoft, so you can go f*ck your self".

If only that was what google actually was saying publicly I would cheer happily. Microsoft needs to die, the sooner the better, and they have absolutely zero reason to complain with their history of being evil.

But instead of publicly telling MS to fuck off, google is pretending that there is no problem at all. This is the same kind of scummy behavior I hate about MS, and so I cannot be happy about it.

"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesnâ(TM)t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."

Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.

And Microsoft claims the API doesn't let them do that, which is possible. Perhaps Google doesn't expose the necessary APIs. Or perhaps to get the ad, you call "GetAd" with the video ID, and expect Google to Do The Right Thing(tm) and return an appropriate ad (which makes sense - do you expect the client to retrieve the ad, do some analysis and if it doesn't work, get another ad? Geez, look at the bandwidth waste!). Of course, perhaps Microsoft isn't dumb and they looked at how Google wrote their YouTube apps on iOS and Android, and saw they were calling some unknown API to fix it.

Of course, "Google Can Do No Evil" attitude is quite prevalent, and I suppose like Apple fanboys, they refuse to see any bad things their company does. It's easy to hate Microsoft. It's easy to hate Apple. But hate Google and the fanboys can be just as vicious as Apple ones.

"Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesnâ(TM)t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators."

Nothing more needed to be said. The rest of the article is manipulation.

And Microsoft claims the API doesn't let them do that, which is possible. Perhaps Google doesn't expose the necessary APIs. Or perhaps to get the ad, you call "GetAd" with the video ID, and expect Google to Do The Right Thing(tm) and return an appropriate ad (which makes sense - do you expect the client to retrieve the ad, do some analysis and if it doesn't work, get another ad? Geez, look at the bandwidth waste!). Of course, perhaps Microsoft isn't dumb and they looked at how Google wrote their YouTube apps on iOS and Android, and saw they were calling some unknown API to fix it.

Of course, "Google Can Do No Evil" attitude is quite prevalent, and I suppose like Apple fanboys, they refuse to see any bad things their company does. It's easy to hate Microsoft. It's easy to hate Apple. But hate Google and the fanboys can be just as vicious as Apple ones.

No. Microsoft doesn't claim the API doesn't let them do that. They are very careful in their wording. "Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us." and " We’ve asked Google to provide whatever information iPhone and Android get so that we can mirror the way ads are served on these platforms more precisely. So far at least, Google has refused to give this information to us." do not add up to "The API doesn't let us do that"

Google are the new Doubleclick, and claiming they do no evil is ridiculous, but so is your post.

Since Youtube is de-facto less than 25% of streaming video on the Internet claiming they are a monopoly would be a long stretch. You would have to filter to user-generated R-rated or less, free services, user generated content. At that point I think the court loses interest. Youtube has a monopoly on Youtube. That is not an antitrust problem any more than Bing has a monopoly on Bing.

What, no Google refused to write the app for Microsoft. Microsoft did nothing of the sort.

"Google, which makes official YouTube apps for iPhones and Android devices, has refused to build one for Windows Phone. The company claims that the market share of Windows Phone is too small to justify the effort and resources it will have to make to create official apps."

"However Microsoft isn't allowing Google to write the Windows Phone app." - This is a flat out lie and is the complete opposite from the reality of t

MicroSoft had plenty of time to fix it after they got into the first round of the altercation. I doubt they'd have trouble if they actually asked Google for coding help when they found out (they must have done that themselves) that they didn't get the ads serving done properly using the documented API calls. To me this seems like a case of "too stubborn and proud to accept they need help" and they got their app blocked.

Mind you, it's not as if you can't view YouTube on Windows Phone 8 anymore, it's just th

So you say, but to be fair, how can you hate them when they've generously retracted all the vicious slanders they've hurled at Google and other competitors over the years? Scroogled, anyone?

How can you stay angry with them when they've so publicly recanted their "235 patents", "FOSS is a cancer" and "Get the Facts" lies and done so much to redress the damage to Linux and the FOSS community?

Why would you hold them in contempt when they're reversed all the damage they caused by whiteanting ISO and blocking the adoption of genuinely open document formats? Though it's true that it would be better if they stopped issuing fake DMCA takedowns [techdirt.com] of their competitors.

And of course, there's no way in the world they could have deliberately provoked this latest contretemps by publishing a non-conforming app without informing or consulting the Google engineers who'd been working with them. That'd be really unlikely, especially given how much contrition they've shown for their past misadventures...

Microsoft does not want to show google ads, because google gets the money. Microsoft wants to show their own ads, so they change the program to disregard google ads and show their own instead.

It is my understanding that the original version of the app didn't show any ads at all, and this updated version shows only the ads that Google themselves serves up.

Assuming my understanding is correct, then this isn't about ad revenue; this is about user experience. Microsoft wants a good Youtube app on their phones because they know their users want one; not having it makes them look bad.

Which is also a very good reason for Google to want them to NOT have such an app. I don't have any idea if that is the actual reason they pulled MS's API key, but I find it infinitely more likely than an ad dispute.

I hate Apple and MS; Google I'm still a bit on the fence about but their massive amount of tracking and information-gathering plus ties to the NSA have made me move to using DuckDuckGo for all my searches lately. But as you said, I hate then in varying amounts, and MS is at the top of the list (though Apple has been rising a lot in recent years, mostly thanks to their patent trolling).

MS have earned their place at the top of a lot of people's lists through their iron dedication to unswervingly cunty behaviour. Apple's evil took a while to really come into focus for me (what can I say, I'm a slow learner) but Google that completely blindsided me. I just had no idea. I'm not ashamed to admit I bought into a good bit of their Geek-friendly kool-aid without going full fanboy. I even felt a tingle of hope when I read their "Don't be evil" motto back in the day.

So when I see MS complaining about Google fucking them over, I honestly don't care. It's like a Mafia boss whining about some rival boss screwing him over in a business deal; what comes around, goes around. If Google were fucking someone else over, I might care a little more, but because it's MS, who has done the same and much worse to so many other companies over the years, I can only laugh. If Google were fucking over users (the way MS has done for most of its existence), then it'd raise my Google hate-meter. But if Google wants to "do evil" to MS, that's really fine by me. Cry me a river, MS.

Is the metadata hidden by Google a metadata like "this ad is from content owner" or "this ad is from us", preventing MS to replace Google's ads by their own ads as they don't know which ads can be removed without getting content owners angry ?

I must admit it is kind reinvigorating to see Microsoft getting the same kind of treatment only Microsoft could give to others just 5 to 10 years ago. I am not saying Google is better although, their turn might come some day too.

Microsoft's CEO has sworn to "fucking kill Google [theregister.co.uk]", saying "I've done it before and I can do it again." He's spending several billion dollars a year on that effort, historically more than $16 Billion [businessinsider.com] if you include aQuantive. He's spending several billion dollars a year on the Google-bashing [scroogled.com] campaign. It's not like Microsoft is some random developer here innocently trying to get their app to work.

ActiveSync protocol is owned by Microsoft. They demand patent licensing for it. Once upon a time they thought their patent portfolio was proof against competitors in push email and calendars, especially in mobile. They thought this was their mobile "lock" that ensured mobile success and would prevent innovation to supplant them.

It turns out ActiveSync isn't really required to do push email and calendars. It can be done another way. So instead of demanding license fees for their patents Microsoft is put in the awkward position of begging that Android implement their proprietary protocols. And Andoid would, but they want a ridiculous fee for the patent license, so: fuck off.

Because by using a patented protocol, you cost more to service than other customers who are using standard protocols like imap (or their own proprietary protocols). Google have to recoup the cost difference somehow, so they charge you. Most of what they charge you will go straight to MS to pay for licensing the patent.The alternative (and previous situation) was that those customers who don't use proprietary patented protocols are subsiding those that do, hardly a fair situation at all.

Holding grudges against a company is really abstract and doesn't make any sense given that companies are composed of many different people and probably like 3/4 of the people are different now than they were back then.

These kind of little inter-corporate kerfuffles happen from time to time.

Hmm. I'm not sure it's interoperable issue when it come to MS, it's always furthering their agenda. In this case, removing ads and preventing Google from monetizing the content it delivers.

When we first built a YouTube app for Windows Phone, we did so with the understanding that Google claimed to grow its business based on open access to its platforms and content

Fuck right off MS. You claim to grow your XBox business via games and subscription fees, but your EULA says I can't block the ads on the homepage with my router without being in breech of your EULA. Oh, but you're fine with blocking Google's ads and then playing the martyr when they ban your app just like you banned my xbox.

The original app did. That's when Google stepped in and dropped the hammer. They gave MS a list of things to do. Even from reading the article, the chap says that they haven't done all of these. Google wanted the app in HTML5 - the app isn't. They wanted other features implemented (which aren't for whatever reason, blame MS or Google - it sort of doesn't matter - they are not implemented) so Google has pulled the plug.

While I am not totally convinced that at least part of this isn't Google playing tough and

This would just reassert the point that Google's TS are discriminatory, since they don't abide by them themselves, and the end result is that they can pick and choose which platforms get a full-fledged YouTube experience and which don't.

my hypothesised reason: because that requires MS to implement html5 features in IE, and Google wants to have those features available for their own web-apps

Can you give an example of a specific HTML5 feature in IE that YouTube would require? It supports a great deal of the standard as of IE10, you know.

possible additional reason: html5 player incorporates code which is under Google control, and provides them with greater control in the future if they need to update/change how some things work.

If you mean basically hosting the mobile YouTube page as is in a web browser control and calling that an app, then this is prec

Both the iOS and Android apps are written by Google. They are free to do whatever they want. Any 3rd-party that wants to display videos in their app has to use the HTML5 (or Flash) player. I don't see why MS should be treated differently.

I presume that MS reserves the right for first-party apps on Windows Phone to use private APIs to implement features no other app can have. Apple certainly does this. Similarly, Google is not bound to using Dalvik for UI if they don't want to.

That's not true. There are scores of YouTube playing apps on the iOS app store. You can download an IOS YouTube app written by Google, but it's not the only one and I don't think ships by default on the device anymore.

I presume that MS reserves the right for first-party apps on Windows Phone to use private APIs to implement features no other app can have. Apple certainly does this.

Apple generally does NOT do this. Not because they are a bunch of saints but because they are not a bunch of damn amateur coders.

Apple doesn't use private API's for their own software for the same reason they don't want other app developers to - because using private APIs means breakage at some point down the line, or because you want to do an API change but some moron on Word (or Pages) made use of a private API and now you have to coordinate with them as to when you can change the API. API interfaces are there for a reason... they protect both sides.

Of course internal Apple products have earlier access to API updates than everyone else (and probably more say as to what API changes need to be made), but there has been no indication that most Apple software that ships on iOS is doing anything you couldn't do yourself. Apple even demonstrates at WWDC how to make apps similar to ones they are shipping.

There are sort of exceptions to the rule in that at times there are whole private frameworks they use to implement some feature (like carrousels) or Settings.app which has to manipulate all kinds of things other applications are not allowed to touch. But by and large any Apple iOS application could be written from scratch if you had a mind to do so.

What about the fast version of the Safari HTML/Javascript engine? All 3rd party apps are limited to using the crippled one. When multitasking first appeared it was limited to Apple apps only. It was a while before the API was available to 3rd party apps.

I actually own a Windows Phone too. It's an HTC HD7 my wife bought to spite me (ah, domestic bliss). She did it right - this was a WP "hero" phone, the benchmark of that day. She used it for three weeks thinking to school me but after a few rounds of "how do I do that cool thing you do on your Galaxy Phone" and the reply "your phone doesn't have that app" she gave up. It's in a drawer somewhere. I haven't seen it in a year. She uses a feature phone now, and is thinking about the Moto X - a real wood skin and awesome life would be just the thing to show up my GS3 with the ultrathick 3rd party extended life battery. She bought the teens iPhones to spite me quite more successfully. Our teens love their iPhones and I don't blame them - they're great gear. iThings are not my thing, but you have to let kids find their own religion.

Poor Microsoft, the company whose motto was at one time "It's not done until Lotus won't run!" The company that intentionally used a non-compliant Kerberos variant to foul up interoperability with *nix systems. The company that went out of its way to kill Netscape and then let the web rot for five years with IE6. The company that intentionally violated its Java licensing agreement with Sun in an attempt to enact its major philosophy; "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish".

No, Microsoft is still the Microsoft of old. They'll never change regardless of what they say. They're still the same old company that'll do anything in their power to sabotage the competition. It's no wonder the OEM's despise them and are flocking to Google.

So it was wrong when Microsoft did it, but because Microsoft did it's ok for Google to do it?

Without any provocation you shoot me; bad. I shoot you back; self defence. Yes; it is not just justified to do this to Microsoft it is the only possible survival mechanism for dealing with them. Companies like Borland that partner end up getting screwed over. Companies like Oracle that fight end up surviving.

We need to get past the "sticking it to Microsoft" mentality and focus on the fact that it's wrong no matter who does it.

"sticking it to Microsoft" is not a "mentality" any more than worrying about your own kids when a known recidivist child killer gets released into your neighbourhood is a mentality. You demand pr

Perhaps Microsoft should stop spreading FUD about Google? Or perhaps they should stop forming shill organizations to do their dirty work by proxy. Or perhaps they should stop trying to undermine Google by pleading with governments to investigate them for anti-trust violations. But, let's start off easily and just retire those pathetic and embarrassing Gmail Man ads. I have to give credit to Google for graciously hosting them on YouTube - I would have deleted their account and blocked their IP.

Man there's a lot of Google fan boys on Slashdot. Google is screwing over MS and yeah MS if fun to pick on but look around Google is quickly becoming "the man". We should all be giving them both barrels over this. Cutting MS out for the 2nd time and trying to close off access to youtube is ridiculous. If youtube was a separate company no way in hell would they want turn away an additional user base like this.

I'm one of those windows phone users and the original app that just wrapped the web version stun

...when I ran into this: "that it doesnâ(TM)t impose on its own platform or Appleâ(TM)s (both of which use Google as the default search engine, of course).". So, they complain about an app being blocked, but they start by pointing fingers - again - about search engine use. FairSearch anyone? So after that line, I couldn't care less. MS wants a Youtube app on WP? Then do that Google wants, s*ck it up - remember (funny they'd need to be reminded so often) your users should have the priority, not you

Is there some big advantage to viewing youtube via an app? I just use the browser on IOS. I used to use the app before it was removed in an upgrade, but I don't remember the experience being any better.

As far as i can see, MS wants google to maintain a non-standard (non html5) interface to youtube. The precedence cases it cites for such an interface are apps which existed before html5 was settled enough to be ready for that. Google wants to serve cotent by html5 and advised MS to use html5 to *correctly* display the videos. MS like to do their own shit and expects google to maintain an interface for them.

Dear MS: Earlier in your life, you may have had the position where any company would have loved to create an interface so that your applications talk to it, and maybe thats still the case for office apps. I dont see exactly how i can access office 356 by and API so that i could lets say... implement and own small helping app on android to enter some data in some documents. Wouldnt that be the same kind of thing? O i forgot probably theo people who like to do it are not big enough to be interesting for you. So neither is the market share of windows phone.

I agree that a complete API to youtube would be nice, but there are many things which google should rank higher in their priorities.

Google also deleted http://www.youtube.com/my_subscriptions [youtube.com] today removing option too see your subscriptions in GRID form.Now instead of looking at a page with 30 videos you are forced to scroll through 4 videos at a time, rest of the page is dedicated to ads and recommendations.

Speaking of openness,hey microsoft, whose leg do I have to hump to get through to someone who speaks passable english and can address bug reports?Your android version of skype is completely and utterly broken and has been for weeks.From a complete lack of a button to get into an existing call that hasn't been picked up. skype inexplicably dumps you from the call screen while it's ringing with no way to get back in if you want to hang up prior to it being answered or say if you reach an elderly person who doesn't believe in voicemail which means the voice just rings forever)to ghost rings which simply refuse to stop ringing even after you've signed out of and terminated the skype app. Not only do they continue during your call making it impossible to talk to the other person, after you sign-out, terminate the app from memory, your phone is still somehow still ringing requiring your to actually restart your device to make it stop.

Maybe if you got your act together people might be more willing to cut you some slack, but lets face facts. You're a shit company, with shit methodologies, and nobody really cares about your struggles.

Really so what you're saying is that if Google builds the apps and distributes them, that's Okay but if Microsoft or any third party ISV builds an app using their public APIs and then distributes that is a blood-soaked hitchhiker?

Since Microsoft has been through the Anti-Trust wringer before, you can bet that this little problem will get all the attention they can dig out of it, in the press and with the DOJ lawyers and the FTC. If Google publishes an API and says "use it, it's open" and then somebody picks up that mantle and builds something using it only to have Google shut it down for fictitious reasons, then at that point you have to call bullshit on the whole openness agenda and "do no evil." When Apple pulled Google Maps out of IOS, Google cried foul [mobileburn.com] because Apple has to approve all apps on their platform and yes, Apple's customers cried foul as well because the Apple Maps app sucked but it seems that Apple, Google and Microsoft are all in this little arms race of what they call "open" APIs and services but when somebody implements an API using them that happens to be another 800 lb gorilla you bet the games will start. Eventually if they don't play nice, it'll wind up in court with a long drawn out legal proceeding and while Google has dodged a few bullets of late, they won't dodge a bullet if MSFT comes back with documentation that Google is playing tricks to maintain a competitive advantage. After all, Google announced that they wouldn't be building apps for Windows Phone.

Not defensive of either company here - Google wrote their own apps for iOS and Android and not for MS, ok, MS got given a list of requirements to comply with something that will be used in a not-insignificant market share, but there's this little gem which I almost missed the first read through:

based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming, which is why we assume YouTube has not yet made the conversion for its iPhone and Android apps.

For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5.

Which I'm reading as "fuck it, too hard, let's just release what we've done and see what happens". Now they complain.

We’ve released an updated YouTube app for Windows Phone that provides the great experience our consumers expect while addressing the concerns Google expressed in May, including the addition of ads," a Microsoft statement notes. "We appreciate Google’s support in ensuring that Windows Phones customers have a quality YouTube experience and look forward to continuing the collaboration.

Note the parts in bold. MS lied, they didn't address it. So Google saw MS thumbing their nose, went WTF, got pissed off and blocked it [engadget.com].

We're committed to providing users and creators with a great and consistent YouTube experience across devices, and we've been working with Microsoft to build a fully featured YouTube for Windows Phone app, based on HTML5. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not made the browser upgrades necessary to enable a fully-featured YouTube experience, and has instead re-released a YouTube app that violates our Terms of Service.

MS gets slapped with its hand caught in the cookie jar and then admits that its 'new' app did not comply with Google's request that it be in HTML5:-

For this reason, we made a decision this week to publish our non-HTML5 app while committing to work with Google long-term on an app based on HTML5.

Note that the new app was pushed out without Google's approval, unlike what they implied. Typical MS arrogance and lies at work. I feel sorry for any Winph8 users caught in the crossfire, but MS does not deserve any sympathy in this matter.

If Google's conditions were HTML 5 then yes, Microsoft would have a problem there but they do make a good point that Google hasn't released an HTML 5 compliant version for Android or IOS for YouTube, so this becomes much more interesting rather than arrogant. Google is playing cat and mouse with Microsoft and teetering on the brink of an anti-trust lawsuit.

Lukovsky's statement said:
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure....At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: "Just tell me it's not Google." I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."....
Thereafter, Mr. Ballmer resumed trying to persuade me to stay....Among other things, Mr. Ballmer told me that "Google's not a real company. It's a house of cards."
Lukovsky left Microsoft in March this year.

They did blow up two planet-sized Death Stars, killed millions maybe billions of people, contractors, construction workers, canteen staff, janitors etc. They gave medals to the grinning yahoos that did it.

Wow, who'd have thought that, in this fight... You'd be rooting for Microsoft?

Slashdot seems to have been taking an extremely pro-Microsoft bias. On they day that an Android based phone in customer satisfaction, they post stories about how Galaxy phones are having problems. On the day that Microsoft's cloud crashes they post stories about how "MS Researchers Develop Acoustic Data Transfer System For Phones". Mostly I guess the shrills and astroturfers have got to the moderation system and the posting queue, but you really have to occasionally wonder about the fact that Microsoft d

Because you're speaking utter nonsense. Google isn't asking Microsoft to move away from Flash because it has nothing to do with Flash in the first place. Microsoft is using the video streams directly like literally every other mobile platform does when viewing YouTube.